Cropping 2:35 Movie to Enlarge the Height

[manono]

Years ago we waited for the HD to come so we can get rid of the black bars in our TVs...

Maybe the ignorant and the ill informed did that. Most of us didn't.

In fact releasing 1:2.35 HD movies is cheating because now the screen (minus the black bars) is only 75% full

Yeah, so? Are you claiming it's any less hi-def than a 1.78:1 movie which fills your television screen? Cheating? Nonsense.

[lordsmurf]

There is some strange thinking in this thread.
Movies are made in many different aspect ratios, and this has been true since the early 50's when "Hollywood" tried to fight off competition from the new home toy, television, by providing a different experience in the theater.

Yep.

Your FOV is irrelevant unless your nose is on the screen.

I don't understand why you say this.

[Gregg]

Maybe the ignorant and the ill informed did that. Most of us didn't.

How this is ignorant I don't get. Not everybody's eyes have a built in black bars removing capabilities.

Yeah, so? Are you claiming it's any less hi-def than a 1.78:1 movie which fills your television screen? Cheating? Nonsense.

The video itself of course is in full HD resolution but it's not full HD TV size (aspect ratio) which is the annoying part. Yes, we can live with that but that doesn't make it less annoying.
I guess if 1:2.35 TVs become the standard the movie industry will start shooting in 1:3 or 1:4 aspect ratio...

[DB83]

^^ It's called POF or 'Point of Focus'

Much like with your tv. There is a, typically, black or dark case border. But you do not notice it when you concentrate on the moving image.

But why should the movie industry change their AR when the tv, if it becomes standard, practically fits what many movies are currently (and historically, filmed in. That is illogical.

[Gregg]

Of course the eye gets used to it but the same applies to the TV broadcast where most of the time it sees the screen full. Then you play a full HD movie that is cropped. It definitely isn't a pain to die from, just annoying. I guess I'll have to wait for 4k movies so when I crop them in my player they will be full HD

[johnmeyer]

Of course the eye gets used to it but the same applies to the TV broadcast where most of the time it sees the screen full. Then you play a full HD movie that is cropped. It definitely isn't a pain to die from, just annoying. I guess I'll have to wait for 4k movies so when I crop them in my player they will be full HD

I don't think you've been reading all the replies to your post. Movies are made in MANY different aspect ratios, so no matter what resolution your TV, and no matter what physical aspect ratio your TV screen has, some movies will not fit perfectly, and will require black bars. This has been true since the early 1950s, and will continue to be true into the future.

Yes, you can always crop -- something you can do today -- but even when the loss of resolution becomes acceptable, because you are starting with 4K, you will still be losing a lot of content, and not seeing everything that was in the original film. I suggest you watch that four minute featurette I linked to in my earlier post. It does a brilliant job of showing how much you will be missing by doing this cropping.

It's your choice, of course, but it seems like a big price to pay just to make sure you have a full screen.

One final note: personally, I found that when I changed from my big screen rear-projection 4:3 CRT TV to my modern LCD HD widescreen TV, the remaining black bars on ultra-widescreen content didn't bother me at all because the screen bezel is black, and I have it mounted in a dark recess in the wall. Therefore, the black bars actually aren't visible when watching in a dark room. This is identical to what happens in a movie theater where the actual screen dimensions are hidden with curtains which are pulled so that the visible portion of the screen matches the aspect ratio of the movie being shown that night.

If you have the money, you can even do this yourself:

Home Theater Stage Curtains

From the marketing copy for these curtains: "Not only do Home Theater Stage Curtains conceal your screen when not in use, they can be programmed with an intermediate stop, enabling your curtains to mask your projection screen to a narrower format at the touch of a button, just as they do in commercial theaters."

[lingyi]

*SIGH* This really pains me to say this, but maybe Disney was right when they used to re-release their classic movies (Snow White, Cinderella, Fantastia, etc) every few decades so the new generation(s) could see them "...like they were intended to be seen". In their large screen theatrical glory!*DOUBLE SIGH*

Okay, that's too extreme, but IMHO, we've gone too far in the opposite direction. Movies aren't Burger King, you're not supposed to "Have it your way".
You may not agree with the way it's presented, but that's the director's artistic. Even pornographic films in the USA must have some artistic merit to be protected under the First Amendment. *TRIPLE SIGH*

If you're distracted by black bars, you're either watching in an improperly lit room or the movie isn't interesting / compelling enough to keep your attention.

Oh well, off my soapbox and back to watching movies in a properly darkened room, in the PROPER aspect ratio as intended!

Edit: Years ago I watched 300 on a 20" CRT with a friend and we had a great evening! Sometimes it's not what you're watching, but the environment (including friends) that makes a movie enjoyable!!

[manono]

How this is ignorant I don't get. Not everybody's eyes have a built in black bars removing capabilities.

Because, apparently, with the ushering in of the hi-def era you expected every movie ever made afterwards to be made at the same 1.78:1 aspect ratio of your television set. Can't you understand how ridiculous that notion is? Movies aren't made to fit the aspect ratio of television sets. Sometimes it's just the opposite. In order to set themselves apart from televisions and to draw people into movie theaters they often are purposely made in wider aspect ratios. Or maybe for home video Blu-Ray viewing you expect the studios to remove 25% of the picture by cutting off the sides just for your benefit?

The black bars don't bother me in the least and they don't bother others that want to view a film in the intended aspect ratio.

[Gregg]

Or maybe for home video Blu-Ray viewing you expect the studios to remove 25% of the picture by cutting off the sides just for your benefit?

Not so long ago I remember that DVD movies were released in two aspect ratios on the same disk so maybe this is not a bad idea at all.
There are movies that I insist on watching in a movie theater and for most I wouldn't bother so different than 16:9 aspect ratios wouldn't make me go to the theater anyway.

[manono]

Not so long ago I remember that DVD movies were released in two aspect ratios on the same disk...

And you don't see them any more, do you? Even Wal-Mart, that icon of American mediocrity, no longer carries pan-and-scan DVDs. Don't you think if there was a dollar to be made the studios would be putting out panned-and-scanned versions of widescreen movies? People have learned. And what about all the fools that bought the wretched things back then? Don't you think they're kicking themselves now that there are bars on the sides when watching them on their pretty widescreen televisions?

I blame the studios and the television networks for this problem. Since the dawn of television Americans have been fed panned-and-scanned films on television in the idiotic belief that it's the way they should be seen, or the way we should want to view them. So people came to think it's normal - that black bars are somehow an aberration. For the most part it's only Americans complaining about this as many Europeans grew up with black bars when watching widescreen movies on their old CRT televisions. For those people that's normal.

By the same token, if there was a dollar to be made converting 2.39:1 movies to 1.78:1 and then marketing the butchered DVDs and Blu-Rays, don't you think they'd be doing it? Just use the zoom on your remote control or television. At least I won't have to watch them at your house.

[johnmeyer]

Not so long ago I remember that DVD movies were released in two aspect ratios on the same disk...

And you don't see them any more, do you? Even Wal-Mart, that icon of American mediocrity, no longer carries pan-and-scan DVDs. Don't you think if there was a dollar to be made the studios would be putting out panned-and-scanned versions of widescreen movies? People have learned.

While I completely agree that movies should be distributed in their original aspect ratio, even if that means watching with letterbox bars, the reason Walmart doesn't carry pan-and-scan DVDs, or two-sided DVD with pan/scan on one side and letterbox on the other, has nothing to do with "people learning."

Here's the real reason you don't see it anymore.

Before the switch to 16:9 HD television, most people's CRT-based 4:3 displays were pretty small. A 35" CRT monitor was expensive, and a 45-55" rear projection TV was WAY more money than most people could afford. Most people had much smaller TVs, with 27" being the "sweet spot" in price vs. size. On a typical 27" CRT display, a movie like Ben Hur, if letterboxed, would be almost impossible to watch: there just isn't enough size or detail available on a TV of that size, with the NTSC or PAL raster scan technology, to be able to see enough detail when the picture is cropped down to 2.76:1.

That's the reason why movies were originally panned & scanned. The directors howled about the violence being done to their artistic vision, but quietly cashed the residual checks they got from video rentals and exhibition on commercial television.

However, now that most people have a pretty good-sized 16:9 LCD TV, there really isn't any argument to be made for pan & scan. Actually, for the original 4:3 and & scan, there is zero argument to be made. Why would anyone watch a 4:3 pan/scan on a 16:9 TV? So that is why those discs have totally disappeared.

[manono]

Yes and no:

There's a bigger factor behind widescreen's triumph: what you might call the continuing education of the filmgoer. If casual movie fans prefer pan-and-scan and film buffs prefer widescreen, then one way to tip the balance is to turn the casual fans into buffs. The DVD format seems to have had precisely that effect.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2004/05/how_widescreen_won.html

He mentions your point about the rise of widescreen televisions spelling the doom of pan-and-scan, but there's more to it than that. His main point is 'people have learned'. The article was written in 2004 at when time widescreen televisions weren't dominant yet, I don't think. And the points he makes can also be used to answer Gregg's claim that some people (a small minority, I'd wager) still want a movie with no black bars at all to watch on their widescreen television. I say they don't want that. They want to see the entire movie. I even hold out hope that cable channels like HBO and SyFy will someday soon follow TCM's lead and show their films in the original aspect ratio.